Vitalik Warns Fake Ethereum Links Lack Substance in L2s

• Vitalik Buterin criticized L2s that use optimistic bridges without adding meaningful technical innovation.
• Ethereum’s base layer is scaling, reducing the need for new copy-based EVM chains.
• Buterin supports app chains that keep issuance and settlement directly on Ethereum.

Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin has raised concerns about the growing number of blockchain projects claiming close ties to Ethereum without deep technical alignment.

His comments focused on Layer 2 networks, app chains, and alternative architectures that rely on branding rather than real integration. The remarks have renewed debate about how projects should position themselves within the Ethereum ecosystem.

Concerns Over Repetitive Layer 2 Designs

Buterin criticized the trend of launching new EVM-compatible chains with limited differentiation. He noted that many projects follow a similar pattern, which includes optimistic bridges with week-long withdrawal delays. According to him, this approach has become routine and reflects a lack of innovation.

He compared this trend to governance forks that replicate existing systems without adding new value. He argued that repeated use of the same structure has reduced creativity across the ecosystem. Buterin said this pattern has led builders into technical dead ends.

Ethereum’s base layer is already scaling, and it will provide more EVM blockspace over time. While this blockspace is not unlimited, it is expected to grow steadily. He said this makes the need for additional copy-based EVM chains less convincing.

The Need for Meaningful Innovation

Buterin said new systems should introduce features that are not already available on Ethereum. He referenced privacy-focused designs, application-specific efficiency, and ultra-low latency execution as examples. These areas, he said, address real limitations and demands.

He also noted that artificial intelligence applications will need lower latency and higher throughput. These needs may not always fit within Ethereum’s main layer, even as it scales. Because of this, new designs should focus on solving clear technical problems.

He emphasized that creating an EVM chain without an Ethereum bridge is even less useful. He said the ecosystem does not need more standalone Layer 1 networks that repeat existing designs.

According to him, builders should focus on offering new capabilities rather than copying past models.

App Chains and Deep Ethereum Integration

Buterin described support for app chains that maintain strong technical ties to Ethereum. He explained that some applications may work best with execution handled off-chain, while issuance and settlement remain on Ethereum. This structure allows security and interoperability to remain intact.

He gave the example of prediction markets. In such a model, markets and user accounts could exist on Ethereum. Trading could occur on a rollup that reads Ethereum data to verify actions. He said this type of setup treats Ethereum as a core dependency, not an afterthought.

Buterin contrasted this with projects that add bridges only to meet public expectations. He said some teams focus on surface-level compliance rather than real integration. This, he argued, creates confusion about what it means to be connected to Ethereum.

Institutional Systems and Honest Positioning

Buterin also discussed systems used by governments or large platforms. These systems may post cryptographic proofs or Merkle roots on-chain. They can show that updates follow pre-set rules and signed authority.

He said these systems are not Ethereum and are not fully trustless. Operators can still change rules if they choose. However, they can offer verifiable transparency, which may support public accountability.

He stated that such projects should clearly explain their role. If a system depends fully on Ethereum, it should call itself an Ethereum application. If it only aligns in vision, that should be stated openly. He summarized this view by saying, “Vibes should match substance.”